Honour - What is it, and how much does it matter in The West?

So, Canada recently had its largest criminal trial on the so-called 'honour-killings' of three teenage girls. You can read the details in the link, but in any case, a number of immigrant organizations in Canada now have to deal with the whole concept of 'honour' and what it means in Canada (and The West).

What I wanted to know was, what exactly is it in our context, and how much does it matter? Is honour the same as reliability (ie. Person A always honours his/her agreements)? Military prowess (Medal of Honor)? Or what? It also has an implied sense of masculinity, which doesn't quite hold as much weight as it does in the past.

Kids in the "West" have a very strong streak of individualism. This is good and bad. Some people have family that just need to go fucking die. Some people cannot live without their family (me, to an extent). A happy medium is preferable.

I believe that the concept of "honour" developed as a beneficial mixture of altruism and reciprocity. Altruism benefits the community, while reciprocity ensures that altruistic individuals are not disadvantaged. A community that embraces such ideals (and punishes freeloaders through diminished respect) is likely to be more successful and enjoyable.

Modern western society largely deprecates the value of altruism; indeed, the root of capitalism is that selfish behaviour en masse leads to good outcomes. Success is the primary measure of respect, not honour. I'm not convinced that's a bad thing; it's hard to argue with the track record of capitalism.

What does that have to do with "honour killings"? Not a great deal. While I think the concept originated as altruism + reciprocity, the specific rules that encode "honour" are of course variable and often designed to benefit a subset of society.

For these backward cultures that practice these killings it is a sense of pride and purity. It only makes sense in a society in the patriarch is the law and women/girls are property with no rights.

It is plain to see how this twisted sense of honor is incompatible with Western society.

Anyways I don't know when I'd describe a person as honorable. May a captain that goes down with the ship. Otherwise I think I'd find words like integrity, bravery, or pridefulness being more appropriate or some combination.

It's a word that hasn't aged well. It used to be the summation of the expectations of society about how an individual ought to act in any given situation. Nowadays not only are societal norms in the west more fragmented than ever, there is also frank acknowledgment of such fragmentation.

A term that means something different to each person means nothing to anyone.

In early American society and pretty much any society that lacks more formal credit options, personal honor is often a stand-in for credit worthiness especially for farmers. As British colonies and less commonly after the revolution, the main reason for duels was because a farmer or plantation owner could not afford to have his honor questioned since it affected his ability to borrow against his future harvests.

Honor has absolutely nothing to do with killing members of your family who have done something you are ashamed of or in the case of this nutjob in Canada, he just killed them because he was an abusive asshole who took the abuse to its logical conclusion, possibly because his daughters and ex-wife were planning to run. These so-called honor killings are only about subjugating women as chattel. It is quite clear that he intended to kill all four women. It is possibly less clear as to the culpability of his wife and son. The defense arguments were unbelievable. They argued it was some kind of accident, but then you could hear the father cursing the dead on a bug planted in his car. Any father who is not a complete psycho would be absolutely broken by the death of 3 of his children. It was obvious he felt no remorse whatsoever and his wife and son seemed not to either. I have no issue with locking them all up in a very small room until they die although if this were the US, and I were on that jury, I would have voted for DP without question.

...which is what I suspected, hence my asking the question to see if other people were feeling the same thing. I absolutely believe that 'honour-killings' are not honourable, and that any sense of 'honour' felt by the father/male relatives is absolutely twisted - which is why it wasn't even on the table. However, those are negative definitions - what honour isn't. I want to know what it is, because people still believe in it, even though it's not a viable currency anymore, nor (in Canada, at least) does martial prowess mean as much as it once did.

I think it goes along with the concept of public shaming (i.e. dishonour).

For organizations such as companies & military units, which are concerned with the effect on public relations (and the share price), & esprit de corps respectively.

For individuals, I guess its the idea of public shame & guilt by association (if I am arrested & convicted of some heinous crime, my family may well hide from the media & disown me). OTOH, there are plenty of examples of families either standing up for their shamed love-one, or simply expressing bewilderment or denial ("BenN was always such a loving husband. I can't understand what he was doing with those dead sheep"), and in this case the compulsion to defend the 'family honour' doesn't seem to strong.

Anyways I don't know when I'd describe a person as honorable. May a captain that goes down with the ship.

I agree with pretty much the rest of your post, but this jumped out at me. How, in any shape or form, is a captain going down with their ship honourable? Last to leave certainly- they have responsibility for the safety of the crew and passengers. Going down when everyone else is off? Seems like a pointless waste of life from my 21st century perspective, particularly if he/she has dependents who are going to be left destitute.

Pretty sure islam is a religion from the east. East of Canada, certainly, and also east of Greenwich.

So I find the title a little perplexing.

Pretty sure "honour killings" have nothing specific to do with Islam. The last major case of this in Canada was a Sikh family killing their daughter. The one example in my extended family/community was a christian girl, I think.. for falling in love with a muslim boy.

You seem to have a bit of an obsessive fixation. It's not healthy.. might wanna get that looked at.

(Edit: and is there any religion aside from scientology that didn't originate east of Canada, and Greenwich?)

On topic. I think the best perspective on the notion of "honour killings" is one that was given by a muslim women's right activist that was interviewed in relation to the Shafia case (the one linked in the OP). I don't remember the article or where I read it, but what she said stuck with me.

These are just regular killings. Westerners apply the label "honour killing" to it because they don't understand the motivations and how they could arise. It's a nomenclature that arises out of the perceived exoticism associated with the murders (outsiders doing it for obscure outsider reasons).

You could classify murders along any other characteristic line, even in the west, and then talk about it in the same terms:

"Revenge killings, are they on the rise?""Money killings, the new threat?""Jealousy killings, are your kids safe from this growing menace?"

The only difference here is that in the west, the notion of the family having that much control and say-so over the lives of children is exotic. So when that's the basis for a killing, it becomes an "honour killing". Anywhere you find cultures allowing for a strong familial control over children personal lives, you'll find killings that occur over that.

In some hypothetical culture where everybody freely assumed the right to have sex with anyone else and monogamy was a nonexistant concept, they might look at killings by people from other cultures over cheating in relationships, and apply some special label to it. "Sex-jealousy killings? Why do they do it and is it a threat to our culture?"

But these killings have little to do with religion, and more to do with expectations of family on children. They'll occur outside of the context of any religion - the people who commit them will use any justification they have at hand - and religion just happens to be the most easily accessible one in most instances.

The connection is about as tenuous as tying murders in the west over cheating partners to Christianity. Sure, the cultural value of monogamy in the west is very often couched in religious terms, and that's how many people relate to it. When that expectation is not fulfilled, some people resort to unjustified violence to express their grievances. The society at large doesn't really condone these kinds of killings, but they still occur - because those cultural values still exist and some people end up feeling particularly slighted when they are broken. There may even be others that step up and try to justify those types of killings.. "that bastard/bitch should have known better, he/she got what was coming".

That "children should obey their parents dutifully and with respect in all things" is not a religious value at all, but it's often couched in religious terms. And when that value is broken, there are a small number of people that end up feeling slighted enough to commit murder over it. That's it. There's nothing more special to it than that. There are a lot of very conservative families that hold those same values, but they won't commit murder over it. They might disown their children, or become estranged from them, or punish them in other, less serious ways, but they don't commit murder.

Quote:

Mormons? Witnesses? Seventh Day Adventists? Christian Scientists?

I don't really think of every minor dialect of Christianity as its own religion, although I admit it's very much a matter of how you choose to delineate different religions. This is going to devolve into semantics really quickly.

I don't think religion and culture can be so neatly separated. Religion is, when it comes down to it, a cultural phenomenon.

Obviously when a religion spans a broad geographic area you'll see different manifestations based on how it intersects with the local culture that it finds there. Such as western Christianity adopting many of the practices and festivals of the pagan converts.

EgalitarianBovine wrote:

In some hypothetical culture where everybody freely assumed the right to have sex with anyone else and monogamy was a nonexistant concept, they might look at killings by people from other cultures over cheating in relationships, and apply some special label to it. "Sex-jealousy killings? Why do they do it and is it a threat to our culture?"

And why shouldn't they? The killings would be motivated by a quirk that was (from their perspective) unique to our culture.

Modern western society largely deprecates the value of altruism; indeed, the root of capitalism is that selfish behaviour en masse leads to good outcomes. Success is the primary measure of respect, not honour. I'm not convinced that's a bad thing; it's hard to argue with the track record of capitalism.

Some individuals like judges and priests are put into very powerful position and we expect they do their job honesty and honorably, not just simply don't do anything illegal. We also kind of expect politicians and reporters to behave honorably but their track record have been very poor.

And why shouldn't they? The killings would be motivated by a quirk that was (from their perspective) unique to our culture.

Not saying they should or shouldn't. I'm just trying to point out that classifying killings like this is not very useful. In any culture, the values on the ground will underlie the motivations for killings that occur in that culture. In this case, the value is "children should obey their parents", and has little to do with "honour". Killings over cheating partners can also be called "honour" killings in that sense.

The value of fealty of children itself is not exotic - we're all quite familiar with it. That it could be held strongly enough to lead to murder is something we grapple with, but using that as an excuse to separate it out into a different class is most likely not very useful for dealing with it.

And why shouldn't they? The killings would be motivated by a quirk that was (from their perspective) unique to our culture.

Not saying they should or shouldn't. I'm just trying to point out that classifying killings like this is not very useful. In any culture, the values on the ground will underlie the motivations for killings that occur in that culture. In this case, the value is "children should obey their parents", and has little to do with "honour". Killings over cheating partners can also be called "honour" killings in that sense.

The value of fealty of children itself is not exotic - we're all quite familiar with it. That it could be held strongly enough to lead to murder is something we grapple with, but using that as an excuse to separate it out into a different class is most likely not very useful for dealing with it.

? Using the word 'excuse' almost sounds like you think that it's an attempt at justification. Rather I believe that separating out into a 'different class' is advantageous because you can then attempt to understand the cultural motivations and target that particular group of people with necessary reforms to reduce the problem.

I don't see how lumping it together with all other murder is at all useful since the motivation tend to be quite specific and may not respond as well to generic methods of deterrence and/or crisis assistance.

Among sociopaths, perhaps. For most people, if you got successful doing awful things, you don't deserve respect.

The successful people who became successful doing unsavory things use two main techniques to gain respect:

1. Hide the unsavoury things they do, so people aren't as aware of how they achieved success2. Insulate themselves from the people that disrespect them, by joining cliques of other successful people who got successful by being assholes.

Quote:

I'm not convinced that's a bad thing; it's hard to argue with the track record of capitalism.

That sentence would make sense if you actually lived in a society that was actually capitalist, as opposed to one that incorporates, at a fundamental level, many values that fundamentally go against capitalism.

? Using the word 'excuse' almost sounds like you think that it's an attempt at justification. Rather I believe that separating out into a 'different class' is advantageous because you can then attempt to understand the cultural motivations and target that particular group of people with necessary reforms to reduce the problem.

I don't see how lumping it together with all other murder is at all useful since the motivation tend to be quite specific and may not respond as well to generic methods of deterrence and/or crisis assistance.

My question is, is it really that useful? What are the rates in western society of, for example, "honour killings (fealty of children)" vs. "honour killings (fidelity of partners)"? If we wanted to save as many lives as possible, which would we want to put more effort into addressing? Are we sure we're not giving this phenomenon unnecessary prominence simply because it's more exotic than what we're familiar with?

I don't think religion and culture can be so neatly separated. Religion is, when it comes down to it, a cultural phenomenon.

Obviously when a religion spans a broad geographic area you'll see different manifestations based on how it intersects with the local culture that it finds there. Such as western Christianity adopting many of the practices and festivals of the pagan converts.

Sure, but this is akin to saying Christianity endorses abortion clinic bombing.

? Using the word 'excuse' almost sounds like you think that it's an attempt at justification. Rather I believe that separating out into a 'different class' is advantageous because you can then attempt to understand the cultural motivations and target that particular group of people with necessary reforms to reduce the problem.

I don't see how lumping it together with all other murder is at all useful since the motivation tend to be quite specific and may not respond as well to generic methods of deterrence and/or crisis assistance.

My question is, is it really that useful? What are the rates in western society of, for example, "honour killings (fealty of children)" vs. "honour killings (fidelity of partners)"? If we wanted to save as many lives as possible, which would we want to put more effort into addressing? Are we sure we're not giving this phenomenon unnecessary prominence simply because it's more exotic than what we're familiar with?

I'm not suggesting that we shift large resources. However, if communities with such traditions become a larger fraction of society, 'honour killings' may become a larger fraction of the total homicides. Having an awareness of the cultural roots will allow prevention and prosecution to be more effective. That is all.

But yeah, I agree that the media attention is largely novelty driven compared to Jim Bob shooting up his wife cause of suspected adultery.

? Using the word 'excuse' almost sounds like you think that it's an attempt at justification. Rather I believe that separating out into a 'different class' is advantageous because you can then attempt to understand the cultural motivations and target that particular group of people with necessary reforms to reduce the problem.

I don't see how lumping it together with all other murder is at all useful since the motivation tend to be quite specific and may not respond as well to generic methods of deterrence and/or crisis assistance.

I'm with Ozy here. EB, you're removing a distinction that is necessary in order to understand the motive for the crime. The fact of the matter is that the husband/father is justified under Sharia law to kill his wife/daughters in order to control them. And it is completely legal, it is in fact expected, under Sharia law. However, the man failed to grasp that Sharia would not be upheld as legitimate in Canadian court.

And here is where the issue is with Islamic Fundamentalism. Sharia isn't just about how they worship. It controls every aspect of their lives. Social, political, private, even economic. They reject every other form of governance in deference to Sharia. Without the dictates of that faith, the motive would be gone and the murders would have most likely never happened. The root cause is the faith. Don't lose sight of that.

I think that arises from good old fashioned misogyny and cultural views of women as property and marriages as property arrangements (of which the bride is one of the properties on the table). If the property becomes useless (not marriageable/saleable), then the owners feel justified in refusing to spend more on its upkeep.

It's like a slave owner killing a slave he feels is useless. I think these types of murders, while being lumped into the "honour killing" umbrella, are better understood through that perspective.

In some traditional Hindu customs, a widow is not supposed to survive her husband. As her husband is being cremated, the honourable thing is for her to throw herself onto the pyre and die with him. Many times, off in the boonies, these decisions get made for the widows.

These killings aren't really seen as killings by the people that do them. For them, it's discarding useless property.

I don't really think of every minor dialect of Christianity as its own religion, although I admit it's very much a matter of how you choose to delineate different religions. This is going to devolve into semantics really quickly.

Any of the multitude of Native American religions. Vodou. Unitarian Universalism.

A number of new religious movements (read: Cult) eg: Creativity. Eckankar. Discordianism.

There are any number of more things that could be pointed to, that range from serious religion based on fiction (Jediism) to religious communities with weak unifiying ties (ULC) to parody religions that are taken semiseriously (The Church of Euthanasia).

I think that arises from good old fashioned misogyny and cultural views of women as property and marriages as property arrangements (of which the bride is one of the properties on the table). If the property becomes useless (not marriageable/saleable), then the owners feel justified in refusing to spend more on its upkeep.

It's like a slave owner killing a slave he feels is useless. I think these types of murders, while being lumped into the "honour killing" umbrella, are better understood through that perspective.

In some traditional Hindu customs, a widow is not supposed to survive her husband. As her husband is being cremated, the honourable thing is for her to throw herself onto the pyre and die with him. Many times, off in the boonies, these decisions get made for the widows.

These killings aren't really seen as killings by the people that do them. For them, it's discarding useless property.

I know which is why these cultures need to be wiped out. The more I think about it I think the best course of action in afghanistan would have been to just shoot every male and move all the women and girls to the West where they have rights and can make decisions for themselves and see how bad off they were. Simply eliminate anyone that propagates that detestable culture.

Sure, but this is akin to saying Christianity endorses abortion clinic bombing.

I'm pretty sure you hear all sorts of Evangelicals speaking out against those bombings. Do you hear Fundamentalist Muslims speaking out against honor killings?

I saw Muslims on the news speaking out against the killings on CNN on Monday. I did not catch if they were Sunni or Shia. Do we routinely hear extremist Christian groups come out against abortion clinic bombings?

I'm with Ozy here. EB, you're removing a distinction that is necessary in order to understand the motive for the crime. The fact of the matter is that the husband/father is justified under Sharia law to kill his wife/daughters in order to control them. And it is completely legal, it is in fact expected, under Sharia law. However, the man failed to grasp that Sharia would not be upheld as legitimate in Canadian court.

And here is where the issue is with Islamic Fundamentalism. Sharia isn't just about how they worship. It controls every aspect of their lives. Social, political, private, even economic. They reject every other form of governance in deference to Sharia. Without the dictates of that faith, the motive would be gone and the murders would have most likely never happened. The root cause is the faith. Don't lose sight of that.

That doesn't explain how the exact same things happen with non-muslims. Before the Shafia case, which was a muslim family, the big example of it was a Sikh family that killed their daughter for marrying a poor kid in India. In the case I'm aware of through family, it was a Christian girl who was found hanging under suspicious circumstances (everybody knows what happened, though. And no, nothing came of it).

IMHO, the whole sharia law angle is a distraction, way blown out of proportion.

I saw Muslims on the news speaking out against the killings on CNN on Monday. I did not catch if they were Sunni or Shia. Do we routinely hear extremist Christian groups come out against abortion clinic bombings?

You saw secular Muslims or you saw taqiyya. You did not see Fundamentalist Muslims. Same as 9/11. Sure you saw some speaking out against the attacks. But they were not Fundamentalists. The Fundamentalists where in the streets cheering at the attack on "The Great Satan."

EgalitarianBovine wrote:

That doesn't explain how the exact same things happen with non-muslims. Before the Shafia case, which was a muslim family, the big example of it was a Sikh family that killed their daughter for marrying a poor kid in India. In the case I'm aware of through family, it was a Christian girl who was found hanging under suspicious circumstances (everybody knows what happened, though. And no, nothing came of it).

IMHO, the whole sharia law angle is a distraction, way blown out of proportion.

It most certainly does in that I never said it was the mutual domain of Sharia. I'm not familiar with Sikh so I cannot speak if that is a religious basis or cultural. However I am familiar with the caste system of India. You DO NOT marry outside your caste. It sounds like in your example the person quite possibly did.

My reference is specifically about the case in the OP. This is what happens in Islamic countries and in countries with Islamic populations. I guess you need to elaborate on how you feel it is blown out of proportion.

You saw secular Muslims or you saw taqiyya. You did not see Fundamentalist Muslims. Same as 9/11. Sure you saw some speaking out against the attacks. But they were not Fundamentalists. The Fundamentalists where in the streets cheering at the attack on "The Great Satan."

Just like not all Christians are extremists not all Muslims are extremists (or fundamentalist as you like to say). I'm sure you will go on to say how they aren't really Muslims at all.

I don't think religion and culture can be so neatly separated. Religion is, when it comes down to it, a cultural phenomenon.

Obviously when a religion spans a broad geographic area you'll see different manifestations based on how it intersects with the local culture that it finds there. Such as western Christianity adopting many of the practices and festivals of the pagan converts.

Sure, but this is akin to saying Christianity endorses abortion clinic bombing.

It would certainly be a mistake to blame all American Christians for that, just as it's a mistake to blame all Muslims for honor killings.

It would also be foolish to believe that the abortion clinic bomber's religious beliefs had nothing to do with their actions.

While I appreciate (and agree with) the attempt not to paint with an overly broad brush and trying to avoid falling into bigotry and prejudice, it's pointless political correctness to pretend that things like religion (and race, and culture, and nationality, and so on and so forth) are absolutely irrelevant. That's just running off to the opposite extreme.